Re: [geo] Carbon Emissions, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, and Unintended Harms - Ethics & International Affairs : Ethics & International Affairs

[Peter Eisenberger]

points toward the continuing moral importance of prioritizing emission
reductions

another amazing example of contorted logic  but also how SRM is being used
here  but than is used with the poor logic to include CDR



On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

> https://www.ethicsandinternationalaffairs.org/2017/carbon-emissions-
> stratospheric-aerosol-injection-unintended-harms/
>
> Carbon Emissions, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, and Unintended Harms
> 
> Christopher J. Preston
>  | 
> December
> 8, 2017
> [Facebook]
> 
>   [Twitter]
> 
>   [Email]
> 
> [image: Print Friendly, PDF & Email]
> 
>
> *Abstract: *In the rapidly expanding literature on the ethics of climate
> engineering, a lot has been made of the fact that stratospheric aerosol
> injection would for the first time create a world whose climate had been
> intentionally shaped by deliberate human decisions. Intention has always
> mattered in ethics. Due to the importance of intention in assigning
> culpability for harms, one might expect that the moral responsibility for
> any harms created during an attempt to reconstruct the global climate using
> stratospheric aerosols would be considerable. This article investigates
> such an expectation by making a comparison between the culpability for any
> unintended harms resulting from stratospheric aerosol injection and
> culpability for the unintended harms already taking place due to carbon
> emissions. To make this comparison, both types of unintended harms are
> viewed through the lens of the doctrine of double effect. The conclusion
> reached goes against what many might expect. The article closes by
> suggesting that a good way to read this surprising conclusion is that it
> points toward the continuing moral importance of prioritizing emission
> reductions.
>
> *Keywords:* climate engineering, stratospheric aerosol injection, carbon
> emissions, unintended harms, doctrine of double effect
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain
confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the
intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the
non-disclosure agreement between the parties.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Carbon Emissions, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, and Unintended Harms - Ethics & International Affairs : Ethics & International Affairs

[Andrew Lockley]

https://www.ethicsandinternationalaffairs.org/2017/carbon-emissions-stratospheric-aerosol-injection-unintended-harms/

Carbon Emissions, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, and Unintended Harms

Christopher J. Preston

| December
8, 2017
[image: Facebook]

 [image: Twitter]

 [image: Email]

[image: Print Friendly, PDF & Email]


*Abstract: *In the rapidly expanding literature on the ethics of climate
engineering, a lot has been made of the fact that stratospheric aerosol
injection would for the first time create a world whose climate had been
intentionally shaped by deliberate human decisions. Intention has always
mattered in ethics. Due to the importance of intention in assigning
culpability for harms, one might expect that the moral responsibility for
any harms created during an attempt to reconstruct the global climate using
stratospheric aerosols would be considerable. This article investigates
such an expectation by making a comparison between the culpability for any
unintended harms resulting from stratospheric aerosol injection and
culpability for the unintended harms already taking place due to carbon
emissions. To make this comparison, both types of unintended harms are
viewed through the lens of the doctrine of double effect. The conclusion
reached goes against what many might expect. The article closes by
suggesting that a good way to read this surprising conclusion is that it
points toward the continuing moral importance of prioritizing emission
reductions.

*Keywords:* climate engineering, stratospheric aerosol injection, carbon
emissions, unintended harms, doctrine of double effect

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.